1812: America's 2nd war of Independence?

In Australia the traditional frontier bar brawls ended in fighting and someone getting punched up, but no shootouts. Some authorities still say Australia's history would have been more exciting with guns, interesting thought (I enjoy my cowboy movies too) but they are not really looking at the facts, guns kill especially in the hands of those who are not educated to use them.  

Actually, the brits one a battle after New Orleans, The Battle of Fort Bowyer, and were on the road of attacking the city when the news came of the peace.

For the most part New Orleans doesn't have anything to do with the war of 1812. It was just the last hurrah at the end (or after the end)

A police license has always been required to handle a gun in Australia. British Colonial Australia inherited much of its early gun controls from British political attitudes and the fact that the settlements were convict based. The role of guns was necessary to maintain law and order in a penal colony. The guns in the hands of troops helped the early convict settlements at Sydney and Hobart to survive.

In 1796 Governor Hunter declared the all guns in the colony of NSW must be registered; further in 1802 Governor King declared that except for the military and officials each house must contain no more than one musket.

As increasing numbers of free settlers came to Australia the frontier expanded and the economy prospered. Guns were by necessity used as a source of food. Some of early Australia's most famous names (Ned Kelly, Captain Thunderbolt) are known for their exploits in 'hold-ups' but in each case they had obtained their firearms illegally.

Quote from Wiki
�There were controls on firearms from the beginning. The firearms issued to convicts (for meat hunting) and settlers (for hunting and protection) were stolen and misused, and this resulted in further controls. In January 1796, David Collins wrote that 'several attempts had been made to ascertain the number of arms in the possession of individuals, as many were feared to be in the hands of those who committed depredations; the crown recalled between two and three hundred stands of arms, but not 50 stands were accounted for'�

Well firstly Australians have always had the right to bear arms, tough anti-gun laws really only came in 1996, and I'm pretty certain that if I wanted to buy a gun I would be able to without too much hassle. Certainly for the colonial period there were no firearm or weapon restrictions. If you were an unarmed settler your chances of survival weren't very high - the aborigines didn't give up their land peacefully.

Secondly Australia is a country built on semi-slave labour. There isn't very much difference between a convict and a slave, other than the fact that a convict is white, and predominantly male. We had very strong emancipist movements in the 1820s, but as you say, didn't have a long term problem probably because the convicts didn't form a lower class, instead they died out, due to lack of women (In 1830ish 16,000 male convicts to 1,500 women in NSW and 6700 men vs 750 women in Van Diemons Land). Australia doesn't have a class structure because our lower class died off, not because it never existed or any fables about "mateship".

The English did learn from American independence, but most of what they learnt was that they could still reap the benefits of America through trade. To apply an Australian style government in America would be impossible. The Americans just wouldn't take it.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 05-Nov-2007 at 10:09

Lol! the British did learn by their first defeat and would have set up the reconquered Americans along the lines of their Australian settlement where they had been hugely successful.

I don't think that would have been possible. In 1812 protestant Australians were legally second class citizens (literally), denied any of the rights of English Law. Catholic Australians were basically considered "white skinned aborigines", and the Aborigines were more likely to get shot than spoken to.
It would be impossible for the English to impose these kinds of laws on a more heavily populated, and rebellious, America.

I think America's original war of independence should be enough...

Lol! the British did learn by their first defeat and would have set up the reconquered Americans along the lines of their Australian settlement where they had been hugely successful. President John Kennedy was fascinated by this interesting subject as well. I saw some old footage where he told of his ancestors being Irish smugglers for America that ran the British blockade even as far south as Australia.  

Originally posted by what_is_history Was the War of 1812 really a SECOND war of U.S. independence?  Who really won the war (if anyone)?  How would the outcome of the war been different if Napoleon was never a factor?  Why does the War of 1812 gain the reputation as America's second war of independence?